4 ms·

To be honest, FreeBSD lacks quite a few things to be a desktop OS for anyone else than hardcore geeks, mainly because it's not at all the main focus of the deve

by Wilya 14y ago

To be honest, FreeBSD lacks quite a few things to be a desktop OS for anyone else than hardcore geeks, mainly because it's not at all the main focus of the developers and maintainers. If you want something that just works, you're better off with something else. Notably, the package managing system shows its limits for desktop, because you have much more packages and more complex dependencies when using Gnome and Kde that in just a basic server. Compiling everything is what works best of FreeBSD (binary stuff tends to have random quirks), and there are a few unavoidable monsters in graphic-land that are very painful to compile. Webkit comes to mind, I'm sure I'm missing one or two others. Plus, the actual developments of desktop things are influenced quite a lot by linux, so you end up having to port quite a lot of internal linux things to make the most high level programs work. Browsers will rely on alsa with no alternative, network managers will rely on linux-specific tools, etc (old examples I have encountered, I don't know the exact current state of things, but there is no reason it would improve). In the end, desktop isn't really where FreeBSD shines, because all the programs you'll end up using will be developed by and for linux users.

tedunangst 14y ago
there is no reason it would improve Well, except for the fact that BSD projects have people working on them to, you know, improve things. The claim that there's too many packages is even more crazy. My linux server has more than twice as many packages installed as my OpenBSD desktop.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  I'm interested in knowing why an openbsd developer is using linux for a server. Wouldn't netbsd be more comfortable/familiar?
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    I'm sure there's some way to run BSD on linode, but the path of least mouse clicks put ubuntu on it. :)
    - drhowarddrfine 14y ago
      If it's allowed, FreeBSD has a utility to remotely install itself on any non-shared Linux host without hosting company intervention.
- Wilya 14y ago
  Of course, there are. I don't mean to criticize their work. The problem is that most graphical applications come from a linux-focused world, and linux is moving, fast, with dozens of time the manpower that BSD projects have. As for the number of packages, two things: 1/ I'm talking very specifically about FreeBSD, which has imo a real problem when it comes to managing binary packages. I have little experience of OpenBSD, and, as was discussed[0] the other day, it seems to be better than FreeBSD in that domain. 2/ The raw number of packages between linux and FreeBSD isn't comparable, but you can compare a FreeBSD desktop and a FreeBSD server. And I stand by my words, speaking of experience: maintaining a typical FreeBSD server with about 100 installed packages is much easier than a typical (a bit fat, actually) desktop with 600 or 700 packages. This is just what I get from my experience of trying, repeatedly, to build and maintain a FreeBSD desktop over quite some time. Yes, it's possible, you can more or less make things work, but it's clunky, and I don't think it's worth it, unless you already use FreeBSD everywhere. [0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4375273 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4375273
duhduhda 14y ago
I guess I'm a "hardcore geek" then. Hard to believe. I just find working with text and not using a mouse to be much faster than clicking if all I'm doing is reading and writing text. In a true peer-to-peer network, as the internet was supposed to be, there are no "client" or "servers", just machines that can play either of those roles, aka "peers". Just because you configure a machine a certain way does not make it a "desktop OS" or a "server". That is a label you've chosen. Configuring a machine's OS a certain way just means that's how you've configured it. BSD is a kernel and some userland utilities. It's a blank canvas. It can be configured to do many different things. If computing to you means Gnome, KDE or OSX, or some other desktop abstraction and GUI flavor of the month, then it's true you'll find more people working on those configurations elsewhere than in a relatively small group of BSD contributors. I like to think BSD is for command line connoisseurs. People who can appreciate responsiveness, organization and clean design all at the same time. People who are not offended by what appears to be simplicity. People who are comfortable with VGA text mode. People who would make graphics a priority, but not necessarily a GUI. BSD already has a working user interface. It's simply a matter of learning to use it.
- Wilya 14y ago
  To clarify, I do use FreeBSD as my everyday (work) OS, and in almost all my servers, and I use a very lightweight window manager (i3). I like it that way, but it's not for everyone. Because most people are used and expect a heavyweight and shiny GUI, a modern browser, a pretty music player, autodetection of wifi networks, and that sort of things. I don't draw the line, and I don't particularly think FreeBSD should be for everyone, but, well, people have expectations, you can't just ignore that.

by Wilya 14y ago

tedunangst 14y ago

there is no reason it would improve Well, except for the fact that BSD projects have people working on them to, you know, improve things. The claim that there's too many packages is even more crazy. My linux server has more than twice as many packages installed as my OpenBSD desktop.

papsosouid 14y ago
I'm interested in knowing why an openbsd developer is using linux for a server. Wouldn't netbsd be more comfortable/familiar?
- tedunangst 14y ago
  I'm sure there's some way to run BSD on linode, but the path of least mouse clicks put ubuntu on it. :)
  - drhowarddrfine 14y ago
    If it's allowed, FreeBSD has a utility to remotely install itself on any non-shared Linux host without hosting company intervention.
Wilya 14y ago
Of course, there are. I don't mean to criticize their work. The problem is that most graphical applications come from a linux-focused world, and linux is moving, fast, with dozens of time the manpower that BSD projects have. As for the number of packages, two things: 1/ I'm talking very specifically about FreeBSD, which has imo a real problem when it comes to managing binary packages. I have little experience of OpenBSD, and, as was discussed[0] the other day, it seems to be better than FreeBSD in that domain. 2/ The raw number of packages between linux and FreeBSD isn't comparable, but you can compare a FreeBSD desktop and a FreeBSD server. And I stand by my words, speaking of experience: maintaining a typical FreeBSD server with about 100 installed packages is much easier than a typical (a bit fat, actually) desktop with 600 or 700 packages. This is just what I get from my experience of trying, repeatedly, to build and maintain a FreeBSD desktop over quite some time. Yes, it's possible, you can more or less make things work, but it's clunky, and I don't think it's worth it, unless you already use FreeBSD everywhere. [0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4375273 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4375273

duhduhda 14y ago

I guess I'm a "hardcore geek" then. Hard to believe. I just find working with text and not using a mouse to be much faster than clicking if all I'm doing is reading and writing text. In a true peer-to-peer network, as the internet was supposed to be, there are no "client" or "servers", just machines that can play either of those roles, aka "peers". Just because you configure a machine a certain way does not make it a "desktop OS" or a "server". That is a label you've chosen. Configuring a machine's OS a certain way just means that's how you've configured it. BSD is a kernel and some userland utilities. It's a blank canvas. It can be configured to do many different things. If computing to you means Gnome, KDE or OSX, or some other desktop abstraction and GUI flavor of the month, then it's true you'll find more people working on those configurations elsewhere than in a relatively small group of BSD contributors. I like to think BSD is for command line connoisseurs. People who can appreciate responsiveness, organization and clean design all at the same time. People who are not offended by what appears to be simplicity. People who are comfortable with VGA text mode. People who would make graphics a priority, but not necessarily a GUI. BSD already has a working user interface. It's simply a matter of learning to use it.

Wilya 14y ago
To clarify, I do use FreeBSD as my everyday (work) OS, and in almost all my servers, and I use a very lightweight window manager (i3). I like it that way, but it's not for everyone. Because most people are used and expect a heavyweight and shiny GUI, a modern browser, a pretty music player, autodetection of wifi networks, and that sort of things. I don't draw the line, and I don't particularly think FreeBSD should be for everyone, but, well, people have expectations, you can't just ignore that.